The New Castle County Land Use Committee on Oct. 24 heard a presentation on the proposed Silverview Farm subdivision, a major land development planned for the south side of Vance Neck Road in St. Georges Hundred.

Applicant representatives told the committee the current proposal is for 192 dwelling units on the southern parcel of a property that in total spans roughly 188 acres. John Tracy, an attorney with Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor representing the applicant, said the application proceeds under the parcel's existing suburban (S) zoning and does not include any rezoning or density bonuses. "We are not using any development enhancement, no age restricted, no MPDU's," Tracy said during the presentation.

The project team said the site is being developed as a market-rate community with four housing types ranging from single-family homes to townhouses. The plan calls for about 72% of the developed parcel to remain as open space; the northern parcel was placed under a conservation easement and will generate transfer-of-development-rights (TDRs) credits the applicant is using on the southern parcel. John Muscari of Atwell, appearing online, said, "The number of units transferred in the TDR is 42 units," and that 35 dwelling-unit equivalents remain on the conserved parcel.

The applicant provided a history of the site: an earlier proposal submitted in 2007 contemplated roughly 230 units but stalled during the real estate recession. The current plan reduces density to 192 units and concentrates development on the southern parcel. The team said public hearings were held before the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board and that the plan moved through the county's PLUS (Preliminary Land Use Service) review without formal objections.

Site and design details presented to the committee include protecting mapped natural resources, reforesting a floodplain meadow, and installing a nature trail with bird boxes. The landscape architect requested and the Board of Adjustment granted relief from certain planting requirements in wetland areas because prior plantings in nearby communities were overtaken by brackish conditions; the project team said the open-space plan reflects that constraint.

Council members asked questions about affordable housing, fire risk in wetlands and phragmites management, school impacts and timing, and public outreach. Pro Tem Hollins and Councilman Street pressed the applicant on the absence of workforce- or inclusionary-housing units; Tracy and other staff said mandatory inclusionary requirements would apply only if a rezoning or density increase were requested. Councilman Street also raised broader concerns about exclusion and historical racial dynamics in the area.

Councilman Carter expressed concern about wetland vegetation and fire risk, citing experience with phragmites in adjacent areas and urging large buffers and an active maintenance approach. The applicant said there is an open-space management plan and that planting decisions were adjusted after Board of Adjustment review to reflect brackish wetland conditions.

The project team also said a voluntary school-assessment agreement has been executed; the per-lot building-permit contribution will be finalized when the first building permit is pulled and the placeholder figure in the agreement will be replaced with the set amount at that time. The applicants said they have not held a separate community meeting beyond required public hearings; they noted only limited neighbor attendance at hearings.

No formal land-use votes on the Silverview Farm plan were taken by the committee at the Oct. 24 session. The committee's agenda item was a presentation; the sponsor will present to the full council at a later date, the applicant said.

Votes at a glance
- Motion to approve minutes (procedural): voice vote; motion carried. (Recorded vocal "aye" responses during the meeting.)
- Motion to adjourn: voice vote; motion carried. (Recorded vocal "aye" responses during the meeting.)

Next steps
Committee members and staff said the application will return to the council sponsor and proceed through the standard county review and permitting process. The applicant indicated construction would begin within the five-year commencement window for major land development approvals but did not provide a construction schedule. A sponsor presentation to the full council was referenced as the next scheduled step.